HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1992 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
1. CLOSED SESSION: Litigation - Government Code 54956.9
Personnel - Government Code 54957.6
No reportable action taken.
2. CALL TO ORDER: MPT/Papen called the meeting to order
at 6:08 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by C/Forbing.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen
Forbing, Miller and Werner. M/Kim was excused.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager;
Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community
Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob
Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City
Clerk.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pam Stroud, 2202 Rusty Pump, stated
that as President of the Ranch Festival Assn., she wanted to
thank the City for its support and assistance during this
year's Festival. She presented a plaque and a check for $800
to MPT/Papen and announced that the funds were earmarked for
the Heritage Park building reconstruction.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln. questioned MPT/Papen's
experience in traffic issues and her past record in approving
the Grand Ave. agreement. He stated that he did not support
her request for Council endorsement of her appointment to the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority and suggested that the
City consider endorsing Tom Ortiz instead.
Lydia Plunk, 1522 Deerfoot Dr., announced that the guest
speaker at the next meeting of the Republican Women's Club to
be held at 7 p.m. on Monday, November 23 at the AQMD would be
State Senator Frank Hill.
4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: MPT/Papen announced that the L.A.
County Sheriff notified the City that the Walnut and San Dimas
Stations will form a Civilian Advisory Board to consist of
representatives from the three contract cities and the three
supervisorial districts within the region. They requested
each City Council to select two members at large to serve on
the board and to submit the names by December 18, 1992.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1.1 Parks & Recreation Commission - November 19,
1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
5.1.2 Planning Commission - November 23, 1992 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.1.3 THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY - NOVEMBER 26 - 27, 1992
- City Offices closed.
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 2
5.1.4 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1992 - 6:00
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 Adopted the following Minute Order entitled: Minutes of
Regular Meeting of November 3, 1992 - Approved as
submitted.
5.3 Adopted the following Minute Order entitled: Warrant
Register November 3, 1992 - Approved in the amount of
$664,850.18.
5.4 NOTICE OF COMPLETION - CARLTON J. PETERSON PARK
CONCESSION STAND ADDITION - On May 19, 1992, Council
awarded a contract to Creative Homes, the lowest respon-
sible bidder, for the Concession Stand Addition at
Peterson Park. Adopted the following Minute Order
entitled: Peterson Park Concession Stand - Completion
Notice - Accepted work performed by Creative Homes and
authorized City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.
5.7 Adopted the following Resolution, No: 92-62, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF PUENTE HILLS LANDFILL AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY AND RAIL LOADING
FACILITY. '-
5.8 Adopted the following Minute Order entitled:
CONSIDERATION OF PARTICIPATION IN THE SAN GABRIEL
VALLEY ECONOMIC ADVANCEMENT PROJECT - Approved
participation in the East San Gabriel Valley Economic
Advancement Project and expenditure of $15,000 to
participate in the project, Standard Industrial Class
(SIC).
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
5.5 RESOLUTION NO. 90-45F: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SETTING FORTH PERSONNEL RULES AND
REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES, SICK
LEAVE, VACATIONS, LEAVES OF ABSENCES, AND OTHER
REGULATIONS - Following discussion, it was agreed that
the matter would be returned to the Personnel Committee
for further consideration.
5.6 Adopted the following Resolution, No: 92-61, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR SUPPORTING AND ENDORSING THE CANDIDACY OF PHYLLIS E.
PAPEN FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC.
6.1 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - Presented to George and
Brandon Hughes, husband and son of Sandy Hughes, for her
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 3
life-saving efforts in performing the Heimlich Maneuver
on Richard Kepler on November 1, 1992.
7. OLD BUSINESS:
7.1 MID -YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 -
Continued to December 1, 1992.
RECESS:
MPT/Papen
recessed the meeting at
6:55 p.m.
RECONVENE:
MPT/Papen
reconvened the meeting
at 7:07 p.m.
7.2 SOLID WASTE - CM/Belanger reported that the Council
subcommittee met after the November 3rd meeting and
development of a third option. In addition, staff
contacted Western Waste to determine whether they would
agree to modify the contract based on concerns expressed
by the public.
In response to an inquiry by C/Werner, CM/Belanger stated
that Chamber of Commerce President, Fred Scalzo, had
indicated that the Chamber would support a quasi -open -
market system as indicated in Option I.
James Roberts, 23627 Bower Cascade, suggested that if the
City grants a monopoly to one waste hauler, that company
should be required to provide a minimum 50% recycling
rate --to include cardboard, greenwaste and scrap metals.
MPT/Papen pointed out that everything Mr. Roberts
suggested is included in the proposed contract.
William George, 378 N. Prospectors, a professional solid
waste manager, submitted copies of his written comments
regarding the contract and the staff report. He verbally
expressed the following concerns: 1) the Rancho Mirage
decision stated that cities cannot give exclusive fran-
chise recycling rights for commercial enterprises; 2)
that the $500,000 fee stated in the contract is high in
exchange for services offered; 3) that a better cost can
be negotiated with another vendor or even the same vendor
under a bid process; 4) that it appears that only seniors
would be allowed to use the 64 gallon container along
with receiving a discount; 5) that the contract does not
address who would clean up hazardous waste spills such as
waste oil; 6) that the performance bond of $10,000 is low
since the penalty to the State is $10,000/day; 7) that no
company can guarantee compliance unless they have a land-
^ fill in the City; 8) that the term "may" should be re-
placed by the term "will" when referring to performance
review hearings; 9) that the California Disposal Assn.
survey is flawed and doesn't always include a franchise
fee; 10) that the vendor should be willing to renegotiate
based on length of contract; 11) that the rates appear to
be low but may not actually be as indicated on Page 6 of
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 4
the staff report; 12) that an analysis of the franchise
fee indicated that the fee will be $9.75/month plus 10%
landfill fees, so that the monthly fee would not be
$10.71 but $10.38, therefore, does Western Waste collect
$.97 yet only pay the City $.64, or is there a flaw in
the analysis; 13) the franchise fee will be paid by the
customers, not the franchisee; 14) that if the City does
start to share revenue, the solid waste collection fee
would go up; 15) that automated containers should be
used; 16) that compostibles are not included in the
$10.74 price; 17) that yard waste collection rates are
not mentioned in Exhibit "E" as indicated in the
contract; 18) that litter caused by collection should be
picked up by the hauler for commercial enterprises as
well as residential; 19) who prepared the disaster
preparedness program? 20) that the City should have more
rights on performance during emergencies; 21) that on
Page 27, Section 25, ownership of waste could stand
further scrutiny; 22) that Page 31 should include a
penalty if the grantee doesn't pay; 23) that Exhibit "C"
on Page 39 has a technical error indicating "25% of the
waste stream collected" but the law states "the waste
stream generated;" 24) specify in Section B what the
suitable alternative is for a 32 gallon container; 25)
that rates are not set forth in Exhibit "F" as indicated
in Section C; 26) that the conditions of the SRRE should
be attached to the contract in Section E; 27) that it is
not necessary for the City to subsidize a hauler in its
efforts in a MRF which may be a more expensive option for
the City; 28) that if the City wants an automated yard
waste pro -gram, then we should not bother with a backyard
composting program; 29) that the contingencies mentioned
on Page 42 should be spelled out; 30) that Western first
indicated $3.07/month for yard waste, but would there be
a 10% fee on that as well; 31) the City's costs should
not be tied into the fluctuation in the market price but
the hauler, with an exclusive franchise, should carry
some risks.
In response to C/Forbing's question, Mr. George stated
that he previously offered to discuss the contract with
several Councilmembers but that he had received no
response.
C/Forbing stated that the Council would have appreciated
it if Mr. George, or any other member of the public, had
given their input directly, prior to a Council meeting,
so that the information could have been implemented,
discussed and/or digested prior to open discussion.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., expressed support of
Option I.
William Tinsman, 1014 Capen Ave., asked whether the lien
provision had been removed. He further indicated concern
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
PAGE 5
that the franchise fee was being charged to customers,
not the franchisee.
Asst. to CM/Butzlaff reviewed the following changes to
the contract since November 3rd: 1) Hours of collection
changed to 6:30 a.m.; 2) Section 5.B. includes language
that the grantee will work with the City to institute a
variable can rate available to every resident beginning
year two of the contract; 3 ) three bulky good collections
each year rather than two, on dates selected by City
Manager; 4) Page 10, Section 0 requires the grantee to
provide disaster preparedness containers to the City and
all public schools; 5) performance deposit increased to
$20,000 with allowance for the grantee to withdraw quart-
erly interest accrued from the deposit; 6) Page 23,
Section F regarding delinquent accounts was deleted; 7)
Page 22, Section 6 now provides that physically disabled
persons may take advantage of the discount formerly pro-
vided only to senior citizens; 9) rates listed on Exhibit
"E" Schedule of Rates, were modified. In regard to the
franchise fee charged, he stated that the formula was as
follows: starting with the base rate negotiated with the
hauler, deducting the landfill fee, multiplying the
product of those by the franchise fee equals the adjusted
base rate. The adjusted base rate is added to the minus
landfill tipping fees which then results in the adjusted
rate to be charged to single-family residential
customers.
C/Werner explained that the
is not for the privilege of
offset the City's costs
requirements.
franchise fee being charged
having a franchise but is to
in complying with AB939
Audrey Hamilton, 1429 Copper Mountain Dr., stated that
she supported the City contracting with multiple haulers
to keep the rates competitive and that the City needs an
automated greenwaste program rather than expecting
residents to compost.
In response to questions posed by Ms. Hamilton, Asst. to
CM/Butzlaff stated 1) that the City participates with the
L.A. County Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Plan
offering 24 locations and 96 yearly opportunities to
dispose of material free of charge as long as it is under
50 lbs. and is not hazardous; 2) the City would have full
indemnification of all fines or penalties levied against
it; 3) a senior citizen has been defined as someone
beyond the age of 60; 4) there are significant differ-
ences between the proposed contract and the contract for
non-exclusive in areas including bulky good collection,
rate control disposal capacity, service provision as well
as limiting resident in curbside disposal of wood
( branches cannot exceed 18" in diameter or 41 in length) .
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 6
Lydia Plunk, 1522 Deerfoot Dr., explained satisfactory
composting methods which do not result in foul smelling
material or attraction of insects.
Fred Scalzo, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated
that the Chamber supported allowing open competition to
dictate the market.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., expressed support of
Option I along with the utilization of staff as stated in
Option III.
Mike Goldenberg, 1850 Morning Canyon Rd., expressed
support of Option I.
Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., supported Option I
allowing free enterprise.
William George, referring to the variable can rate to be
effective in a year, pointed out the expense involved in
replacing original cans with another more desirable size.
Regarding questions posed by MPT/Papen, Asst. to CM/
Butzlaff reported that the contract provides that the ---,
hauler will negotiate rates with homeowner associations
or multi -family complexes subject to approval by the City
Manager.
CA/Arczynski stated that the Rancho Mirage case
( currently pending on appeal) was in regard to commercial
recycling. The court held that recyclables belong to
residents until they are within the haulers' containers
at curbside.
Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend Dr., supported an
exclusive franchise to reduce noise and improve the
quality of life.
It was moved by C/Miller, seconded by C/Werner to approve
Option I providing for non-exclusive contracts to
qualified solid waste contractors meeting requirements
and standards set forth by the City and direct the
Subcommittee to refine the contract prior to the next
meeting. By the following Roll Call vote, motion failed:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner
NOES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MPT/Papen
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - M/Kim
Motion was then made by C/Forbing, seconded by MPT/Papen
to approve Option II with a contract term of six (6)
years; a one year, six month discontinuance period, and
a 10% franchise fee and directing that the comments made
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
PAGE 7
Further, that the Subcommittee meet with Western Waste to
discuss the above changes and direct staff to bring a
final contract back at the next Council meeting.
C/Werner stated that he felt the process of the franchise
proposal was flawed and that it is not the best deal for
the City.
Following discussion, the motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN/NOT VOTING:
8. NEW BUSINESS:
COUNCILMEN - Miller, Forbing
COUNCILMEN - Werner
COUNCILMEN - M/Kim
COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen
8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-63: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE
EXCHANGE OF PROPOSITION A (LOCAL RETURN TRANSIT FUNDS) TO
THE CITY OF PASADENA, FOR UNENCUMBERED FUNDS - CM/
Belanger explained that the City would realize a $300,000
boost to its General Fund if the exchange were approved.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked why the City had
not been able to spend $500,000 on traffic issues over
the past three years.
CM/Belanger explained that the activities that cities can
use these funds for is limited and indicated that D.B.
currently uses Prop A funds for a Transportation Planner
position, a community recreation excursion program, the
Holiday Shuttle, Concerts in the Parks Shuttle, bus paths
on Golden Springs, funding the second phase of a study
conducted by UMA Engineers regarding the possibility of
establishing a fixed route deviation system and to fund
the 57 corridor study.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., opposed exchange of
these funds with Pasadena and stated that they should be
used for senior citizen and youth programs in addition to
trails in upper Sycamore Canyon.
MPT/Papen explained that the City had expended as much of
these funds as possible under the limitations imposed.
This type of exchange has been accomplished in the past
and by placement of the money in the General Fund, the
City can use the funds on programs such as those
suggested by Mr. Schad without restriction.
In response to C/Werner's question, CM/Belanger stated
that the City offered an exchange to the City of
Industry; however, Pasadena was willing to pay a higher
rate.
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
PAGE 8
Industry; however, Pasadena was willing to pay a higher
rate.
It was moved by C/Forbing, seconded by C/Miller and
carried to adopt Resolution No. 92-63 approving the
exchange of Proposition A funds with the City of
Pasadena. With the following Roll Call vote, motion
carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/
Papen
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - M/Kim
8.2 FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING A 3' HIGH BLOCK WALL WITH A
3' HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE ALONG GRAND AVE. AT GOLD
NUGGET AVE. - ICE/Wentz reported that in order to address
Gold Nugget Ave. residents' concern regarding noise,
traffic accidents, speeding vehicles and debris, several
options were reviewed and discussed by the Traffic &
Transportation Commission. Of those options, slope land-
scaping and construction of a 3' high block wall with a
3' high wrought iron fence were deemed appropriate. The
Commission and staff felt that with their willingness to
participate in funding the improvements, most of the
concerns can be mitigated.
Stan Granger, 23800 Gold Nugget Ave., stated that 158
accidents occurred along Grand Ave. in a 3 -year period
with 16 accidents taking place within the area being
discussed; 10 of these accidents resulted in damage to
private property; area residents were more concerned with
safety than with reduction of noise; and that residents
were concerned with the Traffic & Transportation
Commission's opinion that it is safer for a vehicle to
end up on private property than it is to be deflected
back into traffic. He suggested that the City consider
reducing the speed limit, resurfacing Grand Ave. with
rubberized asphalt; installing a guard rail at the curb
and constructing a wall at the lower end of the road to
mitigate noise.
MPT/Papen excused herself from discussion of this matter
due to a potential conflict of interest in that she
resides near the area being discussed. She requested
that C/Werner preside over this matter.
Han Kuo, 23740 Gold Nugget Ave., supported statements
made by Mr. Granger and added that the residents need
protection from the vehicle accidents occurring along
Grand Ave.
John Willwerth, 23923 Gold Nugget Ave., stated that the
City needs to address the safety problem in this area and
that money collected to mitigate the problems on Grand
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 9
liable if the City installs a barrier incapable of
keeping vehicles from sliding down the slopes.
Patricia Ayoub, 23656 Gold Nugget Ave., stated that
traffic reports obtained by staff are incomplete and that
vehicles can roll into any property, not just those
recommended for construction of a block wall; area
residents are not safe in their homes; Grand Ave. is not
a City street but a highway and the City may be liable
for neglect if the safety issue is not mitigated. She
suggested that funding for a sound wall could be obtained
from the funds exchanged with Pasadena.
Grace Cruz, 23642 Gold Nugget Ave., felt that a 6 foot
sound wall would be needed to mitigate noise and safety
issues as was done for the Regency and Brock homes
further up the street.
Simon Cohen, 23631 Gold Nugget Ave., and Ann Rehann,
23790 Gold Nugget Ave., agreed with statements made by
their neighbors.
C/Miller agreed that the developer of the homes in this
area should have constructed a wall; however, the area
was developed prior to Cityhood. The City does not have
funds for a sound wall but there may be funds for a
guardrail available from the Grand Ave. settlement.
It was moved by C/Forbing, seconded by C/Werner to direct
staff to develop a proposal on the cost and appropriate
location for installation of a guardrail. Further,
provide estimates for installation of hedges to hide the
guardrail and provide a sound barrier and bring estimates
back to Council. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner, Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - M/Kim
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen
8.3 CITY COUNCIL VACANCY - CM/Belanger reported that the
Council, pursuant to the Government Code, needed tc
establish a procedure for filling the unexpired term of
M/Kim (Congressman -elect). When a Council seat becomes
vacant, the Council may appoint a replacement within 30
days of the vacancy or call a special election. Persons
interested in filling the vacancy were encouraged to
submit an application at City Hall.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., felt that a special
election should be called to fill the vacant seat. In
the alternative, if the Council decides to appoint a
replacement, they should select the person who was next
in line in the past election and that person should be
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 10
the alternative, if the Council decides to appoint a
replacement, they should select the person who was next
in line in the past election and that person should be
allowed to run in the next election.
Jeff Nelson, 23051 Rio Lobos, stated that if the Council
appointed a replacement to the seat, they would choose
someone that they could manipulate. He agreed with Mr.
Maxwell that if a replacement is appointed, then the
runner-up in the last election should be selected.
Jack Kowtowski, 1856 Kiowa Crest Dr., suggested that the
Council first determine the rules and asked the City
Attorney if two persons voting on an issue represents a
majority of those present and whether a 2-1-1 vote is
legal, as was done on the Solid Waste franchise
agreement.
CA/Arczynski reported that there is no legal impediment
to a 2-1 vote or a 2-1-1 vote on such an item.
John Riad, 2177 Rocky View Rd. and Clair Harmony, 24139
Afamado Ln., stated that they prefer a special election
to fill the vacancy.
In response to MPT/PapenIs request, CM/Belanger explained
that the City does not enforce temporary signs placed on
private property except if the sign is of the type
requiring a permit. Under the City's temporary sign
Ordinance, individuals or companies are permitted to put
up signs no larger than 6 sq. ft. in the City right-of-
way in specified locations, no more than one per block,
no sooner than 30 days prior to an event.
C/Werner indicated that he supported the election process
but if the Council decided to appoint a replacement, then
he would not vote for anyone placing appointment signs
throughout the City.
C/Forbing pointed out that election could cost the City
approximately $50,000 as well as costing a candidate
approximately $10,000. If that candidate were to run for
election again in November 1993, it would cost him or her
another $10,000. He recommended that the Council conduct
interviews of interested appointees on December 8, 1992
in the AQMD Auditorium and broadcast these interviews on
cable television. Further, the Council should chose a
replacement at the December 15, 1992 regular meeting. --
Interested parties should file an application prior to
the December 1, 1992 meeting.
C/Miller concurred with C/Forbing's suggestions and added
that each Councilmember should recommend two persons each
to be interviewed.
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 11
MPT/Papen explained that applications and letters of
qualifications should be submitted to City Hall by 5 p.m.
on November 30, 1992. Each Councilmember will then
select two persons to be interviewed beginning at 6 p.m.
at the AQMD on December 8, 1992. Further, the Council
will not consider anyone who has not filed an application
or letter of intent before the specified time. The
appointee will be permitted to run for election in
November 1993 if qualified.
CA/Arczynski suggested that the City Clerk be directed to
provide interested parties with copies of the manuals and
forms pertaining to Conflict of Interest and Campaign
Reporting provisions.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard.
9.1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850 AND CERTIFICATION
OF DRAFT MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 91-2 -
CDD/DeStefano reported that the applicant requested
approval for a 53 -unit subdivision upon 73 acres located
adjacent to "The Country" and within SEA 15. The
-- applicant was directed on April 21 1992 to provide
additional geology and soils data for review. The data
and findings presented by the applicant at the end of
October 1992 were considered by staff. to be insufficient
to recommend approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
The applicant requested a continuance of the Public
Hearing to January, 1993. He recommended that the
Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the
project without prejudice.
ICE/Wentz reported that the applicants' documents had
been reviewed by Engineering and by the consultant,
Layton & Associates. Soils and geology concerns
continued to be a problem, particularly as they related
to the location and depth of some of the slide planes on
the site, as well as a concern for the data used
calculating their conclusions. Staff and the consultant
identified a potential for an alternative project
relating to the development of the eastern ridge only
that may have less overall impact and may require less
mitigation. He recommended, based upon the information
received and the inability to effectively resolve some of
the earlier concerns related to soils and geology, that
the Council deny the project without prejudice.
Kay St. Peters, Layton & Associates, reported that a
review sheet with questions submitted to the applicant on
October 29, 1992 had not been responded to. The reason
more geotechnical work was required is related to the
need to stabilize the proposed ridge top development with
remedial grading outside the design limits. She summar-
ized the main questions as submitted in the staff report
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 12
need to stabilize the proposed ridge top development with
remedial grading outside the design limits. She summar-
ized the main questions as submitted in the staff report
and concluded that, though the project could be safely
built, it was recommended that the soils and geology not
be approved until the applicant responded to the review
questions because of the extent of the remedial work.
The lost of natural area was still in question.
In response to questions posed by MPT/Papen, CM/Belanger
stated that in late spring of 1992, Council identified
several areas that required further study regarding the
subsurface and the kind of remediation that would have to
take place in order to support the project safely. A lot
of information has been traded, but it does answer some
of the very basic questions relating to the ultimate
stability and do -ability of the project. A much more
comprehensive analysis is needed. Staff and the Council
has taken the view that the entitlement will be driven by
the scientific and technical data proving the safety of
the project.
MPT/Papen opened the Public Hearing.
Judge Cecil Mills, applicant, questioned staff's
recommendation for denial and stated that he felt
everything said appeared to support their request for a
continuance to comply with the City's requested findings.
Plans were submitted to the City September 1, 1992 and on
September 12, 1992, Layton & Associates provided a list
of requested information consisting of two items. 4Those
items were addressed and a supplemental report was
submitted to the City. On October 20, 1992, Layton &
Associates requested data on three additional items, all
of which would require some time to respond to, presuming
that the Council would want an adequate analysis once
bore holes were drilled. On October 29, 1992, Layton &
Associates presented a corrected list of 24 items and a
meeting was held with City staff. There was a consensus
that it was impractical to respond to those concerns for
this meeting date. Based on that consensus, he forwarded
a request for a continuance to January, 1993. He stated
that his first indication that there was going to be a
recommendation of denial, based on the finding that the
project has not demonstrated that the soil is suitable
for development, was when he met with staff again on
November 10, 1992. He felt that he was led to believe
that, with some modification to remedial soils work, the
development could proceed in some fashion. He questioned —
how it can be concluded that the site is unsuitable until
the testing is completed and those questions raised by
Layton & Associates have been addressed. Further, if
there is development potential on the eastern portion, as
stated in the staff report, then he should be afforded
the opportunity to look at that as an alternative. He
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
PAGE 13
attempt to make the project go away so that the
Referendum lawsuit is resolved, then he is willing to
delay the project until the General Plan situation is
resolved.
C/Miller stated that he felt the project had been given
due process and that many concerns were raised regarding
the problems on the property and extensions were granted
to allow an opportunity to resolve those issues. In his
opinion, those problems were not justified in a way that
the Council feels they should be resolved. He indicated
that he would not approve any project that cannot be
justified and noted that the applicant could return next
month with any project reconfiguration as long as the
problems can be justified.
C/Werner stated that because of the concerns regarding
the bentonite plane and the major public safety concerns
raised regarding land slippage, the Council requested a
more explicit and detailed set of plans than normally
requested on a Tentative Map. The concerns raised by
Council and staff have not been adequately answered,
indicated that perhaps the issues are insurmountable. If
Council were to grant another continuance, more money
would be expended and the applicant could argue that he
is becoming vested with rights to develop the project.
He stated that he is inclined to deny- the project so that
a continuance is not interpreted as,a tacit approval of
the project.
MPT/Papen stated that if the Council were to deny the
project in order to resolve a Referendum issue, then that
decision would have been made last April. Council took
the position that the decision should be made on
technical merit and six months should have been adequate
time to resolve those issues raised.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., requested that the
applicant not retain the vested tentative rights, if
possible, and challenge him to prove that he is actually
vested.
Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch, concurred with the
recommendation to deny the project. She suggested that
Judge Mills review the Palos Verdes situation in Rolling
Hills.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., commended the Council on
taking such a stand on this issue. The property has a
very severe 70 degree anticline/syncline formation in the
middle of the project which is laminated with layers of
bentonite. Nothing could be built on that project that
could be safely constructed under any conditions.
With no further testimony offered, MPT/Papen closed the
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 14
could be safely constructed under any conditions.
With no further testimony offered, MPT/Papen closed the
Public Hearing.
It was moved by C/Miller, seconded by C/Werner to direct
staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for the project
without prejudice, based on the findings contained in
Section 66474 c & d of the Government Code in that the
site has not been proven to be physically suitable for
the proposed development. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/
Papen
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - M/Kim
9.2 ORDINANCE NO. 5A (1992) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 5 (1992) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 65858(a) AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - CDD/DeStefano reported that
Ordinance No. 5 was an interim agricultural zone --
ordinance adopted October 6, 1992 and which would expire
November 20, 1992 unless extended by the City Council.
He recommended approval of an extension of the Interim
Agricultural Ordinance by adopting Ordinance No. 5A
(1992).
MPT/Papen opened the Public Hearing.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked what property in
the City is presently zoned agricultural.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the entire 800 acres of Tres
Hermanos Ranch is zoned agricultural. The Interim
Ordinance only affects those properties that are first
classified by the General plan as agricultural and
second, zoned by either the City or the County as
agricultural. The area for which this Ordinance would
apply is the 3,600 Sphere of Influence area adjacent to
the City's boundaries.
CA/Arczynski confirmed that the effects of the General
Plan had been suspended because of the Referendum and the
mandate action. The purpose of the ordinance was to
follow through with the Council's commitment to limit the
uses available in that particular area.
There being no further testimony offered, MPT/Papen
closed the Public Hearing.
It was moved by C/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to waive
full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 5A (1992). Motion
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 15
Papen
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - M/Kim
9.3 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-2: CONSIDERATION OF A
HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (HMO) TO ESTABLISH
PERMANENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT - Continued
from November 3, 1992. CM/Belanger recommended that the
Public Hearing be continued to December 1, 1992 in order
to provide additional time to review the recommended
Ordinance.
MPT/Papen opened the Public Hearing.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that he concurred
with the General Plan Advisory Committee's recommendation
of 1 home per 2 1/2 acres for any grade over 30% and 1
home per 5 acres for any grade over 31% up to reasonable
building ability. He recommended that any vegetation
found in any developments on hillsides over 31% be left
intact as much as possible pending fire dangers to the
structures. In response to MPT/Papen, he stated that
there is close to 15% of undeveloped land in this City
which is over 30% grade.
With Council consensus, MPT/Papen continued the Public
Hearing to December 1, 1992.
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: MPT/Papen requested Council concur-
rence to correspond with LACTC urging them not to supply
further funding to RTD.
11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct,
MPT/Papen adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
ILYA BURGESS, C2rk
ATTEST:
Mayor Pro T m